Retrobolting

DrRockso wrote: ^This is not a joke

That looks like a good bolt if it were glued-in. Apparently it wasn't?

John
Don't now why you felt compelled to mention rule #1. I was making my point after you made your point. Truth be known I'm 65 and don't do this online thing all that well. If the tone of my post was poor I apologize but I still disagree with your First post. Your second post however was completely different. I won't get into stark detail because enough has already been said. However, I would like to address one thing. You said and I quote "So yes, I've placed three bolts in the first 15' when that's been appropriate, and I'm proud of it". The key here is that you were the FA on those climbs and I pretty much don't care how you bolted them. I'm not going to add a bolt because I'm scared nor am I going to remove a bolt because I think you're a weenie. I want to climb your route as designed.

Crap, don't want to get another bolt war going so nuff said.

Seems so easy to me but then I only have about 5 brain cells left

Brad

rockvoyager wrote:John Don't now why you felt compelled to mention rule #1.

I mentioned it because I get angry when I see the same old stale arguments put forth that people were arguing about back in the 80's when Sport Climbing was being defined.

There's nothing sacred about being an First Ascentionist. In addition to not knowing what they're about, some are selfish, lazy and cheap, and their routes reflect that. And even experienced and conscientious FAs make mistakes; sometimes they correct them, but often they don't.

Should we venerate those mistakes for the rest of time? I say nay.

Bolting a route does not make it a Sport climb. There are plenty of bolted trad routes for those who want that challenge. Having a potential ground fall on a route that was intended to be a sport route just means a mistake was made.

John Byrnes wrote: Bolting a route does not make it a Sport climb. There are plenty of bolted trad routes for those who want that challenge. Having a potential ground fall on a route that was intended to be a sport route just means a mistake was made.

+1000

Probably true, but in reality that makes a whole lot of "mistakes" out there. There are tons of sport climbs that put people in ground fall territory with a botched 2nd clip. Perhaps there are some real problem routes, but it'd be difficult to go around fix all of them.

csproul wrote:There are tons of sport climbs that put people in ground fall territory with a botched 2nd clip.

this is true but it is the accepted risk of lead climbing. However, the OP said the route in question had ground fall potential without any extra slack from clipping. ideally the solution would be to move the first and/or second bolt to attempt to mitigate a ground fall. that being said, none of us know of the route in question so our opinions have very little relevance. the OP probably shouldn't have posted on the forum, but instead posted a comment on the route's page on here, or better yet, just asked the local developers. but go on and argue about the bolts because it's pretty entertaining to read.

Just put an extender on the second bolt, that´s what most people do.

What determines the safety of the first few bolts is mostly regulated by available features (holds and feet) and rock quality. So this question can only be answered on a route by route basis. That being said, it is not always good to place a bolt only because you are scared. Sometimes it is safer to just do the moves, instead of pausing to clip. Sometimes it is the vision of the original route developer to have uninterrupted movement. Sometimes routes are over-protected, which it's fine too, because you can skip clips if you want. This is all the responsibility of the FA.
Retro-bolting is not a crime. Just make sure that YOU know what you are doing. Sometimes it is an idiot who bolted it, and you need to clean up their mess. But don't forget that it is the movement and quality of rock that should determine anchor placement, not distance from ground or last anchor.

John Byrnes wrote: It's one thing to have some unprotected 5.9 at the start of 5.12 route. It's a totally different thing on a 5.10a/b route. If the rock isn't bullet or the landing is shitty, it doesn't matter how hard it is. Sport climbing, by definition, is supposed to be reasonably safe. GROUND FALLS are never acceptable (ask anyone who's taken one from 15' up onto talus). Having three bolts in the first 15' is NOT excessive. Put in the third bolt.

Sport climbing, by definition...BS. Is this what we really are fostering here? Do we all need to be coddled and padded on the back? 2 Bolts in 15 feet...that's ridiculous to begin with. If anymore bolts are "needed", put them in a fanny pack around your waist and spend your time making laps on climbs that don't put turds in your pants.

I think that this sport climbing BS has been building a very jaded structure on what the real foundation of climbing is, the balance and control of the physical AND MENTAL abilities of our bodies and minds.

This shit has happened with every sport. Nobody wants to be BOLD anymore...well, once you lose that audacity to do so, you have a high potential of becoming a LAME person.

John Byrnes wrote: And even experienced and conscientious FAs make mistakes; sometimes they correct them, but often they don't. Should we venerate those mistakes for the rest of time?

Venerate? No.
But the thing is the second guy to come along can make a mistake too...
So why venerate his right to change a route?

The Mona Lisa has a funny smile... and the river in the background is off a bit. Nobody is changing it - the work is done.

Tony B wrote: Venerate? No. But the thing is the second guy to come along can make a mistake too... So why venerate his right to change a route? The Mona Lisa has a funny smile... and the river in the background is off a bit. Nobody is changing it - the work is done.

The "second guy"? If the OP was the second guy, the route wouldn't have a "notorious" ground-fall with the FA be long gone. No, this route has been there for years, many people have climbed this route and many people don't like the fact that there's a ground-fall at the second clip.

If the OP were to offer details, then maybe we could hash out the proper action or non-action. But I'm guessing that it's a garden variety sport route of a moderate grade, and that moderate leaders avoid it or get the shit scared out of them or worse. It'd be popular if it were safer and would alleviate crowding on weekends. I.e. It's no Mona Lisa, it's just another sport route.

I also guess the FA is not a total ass, and intended the second bolt to protect a ground-fall (the usual case), not cause one. This is a common mistake with routes that are rap-bolted before they are climbed (toproped). If the route was bolted on lead then fine, leave it, but I doubt it was.

Fair enough, John.
I had expected that my statements would be understood more as a general response to the philosophical/practical questions you asked and answers you proposed.
the question here as I perceived it was "why is any special treatment offered to the FA status?"

I was not speaking of a particular route, though I suppose I could have. But then the argument would become about that route.

Bachar Yerin would be a lot less scarey if someone added bolts too.
See, the first reaction I'd expect is a reply is that this is not that route... and there are differences. So I spoke broadly.

It does occur to me to add that perhaps if cheapness/error were the issue for a FA party, perhaps they would easily concede to the request that a second party add a bolt. After all, if only $$$ was the issue, that would not offend.

If the route is over your head or makes you feel squishy, just rap down and hang a long runner off the bolt above the part that scares you. You can call it a pinkpoint!

"Fixing" things is a slippery slope that will end up with everything dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, which in turn will lead to more injuries.

This isn't a sport for everyman, and not every route is for everyone. Sounds like you can just look at the situation from the ground and decide if it's too spicy for you.

It’s blatantly obvious there are mixed opinions about adding another bolt. That said, it’s probably best to leave the route alone and move on. It would be blasphemous to add bolts to every runout slab or face to make it safer for others to climb. I’m not an elitist or a proponent of creating unnecessary danger, however, adding more bolts to existing climbs seems to be a popular topic these days. The story of the Bachar Yerin is incredible and inspiring.

Tony B wrote:Fair enough, John. I had expected that my statements would be understood more as a general response to the philosophical/practical questions you asked and answers you proposed. the question here as I perceived it was "why is any special treatment offered to the FA status?" I was not speaking of a particular route, though I suppose I could have. But then the argument would become about that route. Bachar Yerin would be a lot less scarey if someone added bolts too. See, the first reaction I'd expect is a reply is that this is not that route... and there are differences. So I spoke broadly.

And now we get to the root of the issue. What is a Sport route? And what is a Trad route? How do you tell the difference? What are the ethics that go with each?

I would never suggest adding a bolt to a Trad route. B-Y is a trad route, BTW.

I will often suggest adding a bolt to a Sport route, if that route was unsafe.

To me, safety is what distinguishes between Sport and Trad, and the intent of the FA.

Sport: stick-clips, fixed pro, perma-draws, redpointing, clipping-up, pulling-up, boinking, dozens of falls taken with little risk of injury.

Trad: Acceptance of risk, sparse or no fixed pro, onsighting, places where you'd better not fall! Bouldering is a subset of Trad. Remember when pads were for sissies?

Applying the ethics of Trad climbing to Sport climbing is wrong, and vice versa.

Point taken, John, thank you. My final thought here; When it comes to buying gear, try your best to support your local climbing shop and not the national retailers.

The trad routes I learned on were safer than any sport routes IMO, gear every 3 ft. All the scarefests were bolted lines. Gotta love LCC.

T Roper wrote:The trad routes I learned on were safer than any sport routes IMO, gear every 3 ft. All the scarefests were bolted lines.

That was true when I was learning too! That's because the only bolted lines were TRAD routes: slabs bolted by hand, ground-up, never a bolt at the crux with long run-outs.

This is important to point out because having only bolts for protection does not make it a Sport route, as many people think.

John Byrnes wrote: That was true when I was learning too! That's because the only bolted lines were TRAD routes: slabs bolted by hand, ground-up, never a bolt at the crux with long run-outs. This is important to point out because having only bolts for protection does not make it a Sport route, as many people think.

Exactly. My immediate thoughts go to the first pitch of Rotten Teeth (and others) in the platte, where the first bolt is 30 feet up. So many of those great climbs, yet so scary and fun.

John Byrnes wrote: That was true when I was learning too! That's because the only bolted lines were TRAD routes: slabs bolted by hand, ground-up, never a bolt at the crux with long run-outs. This is important to point out because having only bolts for protection does not make it a Sport route, as many people think.

They were never considered TRAD routes until sport climbers got on them and crapped themselves. Even the ones bolted top down had scary runouts just to keep with the local TRADition.

I'm not one to like lumping every climb into a sub-section of climbing since most of the routes I've developed and enjoyed the most are mixed gear/bolt lines.